Big Dance 2022 - Let's Go!

[Flying Weasel]

Congratulations to UChicago-- 2022 NCAA DIII Men's Soccer Champions

Final:  UChicago 2, Williams 0   Chicago gets an empty net goal with 14 seconds left to seal it.

Congratulations to Julianne Sitch- First woman to coach a men's soccer team to an NCAA Championship in any division.

I wonder if Sitch is also the first coach to win it in the their first year with the program and in their first year as a college head coach at any level (she was head coach of the Chicago Red Stars reserves that won their conference in the WPSL in 2021, but otherwise her college (and senior level pro) experience has been as an assistant coach).  I wouldn't be surprised if those are firsts in college as well.  Although she inherited a really strong team with tournament experience, I've seen many a head coach screw that up.  Plus, she helped integrate some strong freshman attackers into the lineup and kept the team united and tactically strong.  Arguably, she brought in tactics that pushed them over the top.

Interestingly, I just read about the CWRU women's coach today in part because CWRU being in the title game, especially the women, seemed surprising to me.  Abby Richter, the CWRU coach, fits all those criteria above....hired in August, never a head coach before.  I totally understood why Bianco left CWRU for Denison but CWRU is a fantastic school... maybe doesn't have the glamour of some of its UAA brethren but one of the more underrated, under the radar schools among top tier academic schools.  The CWRU women's record over the past few years suggests that they were building towards a season like the one they're having, but, just like with the Chicago men, being able to go so far with another coach you just met when school started seems impressive.

On the topic of women coaches and Case Western, the head coach that preceded Abby Ritcher at Case Western was also a woman, Jen Simonetti.  Given the timing of Simonetti leaving for Division I Akron (women's HC) in mid-July and Ritcher's hire a week into August, this year's squad is entirely Simonetti's recruits including two grad student D-I transfers. Case only lost 3 full-time starters and 1 part-time starter from last year to graduation while 2 seniors chose to return for a 5th year including their All-American midfielder who led the team in goals and assists in 2021. In three years/two seasons, Simonetti turned a mediocre team and UAA doormat into a nationally relevant Top 25 team, setting the table for what Ritcher accomplished this year.  Simonetti was named the D3soccer.com Coach of the Year last year.  Here's the write-up:

In a somewhat non-traditional, but well-deserved choice, the D3soccer.com women’s Coach of the Year is Jen Simonetti, of Case Western Reserve, who led the Spartans to their most successful season in program history. In 2021 they recorded an overall record of 16-2-2, a UAA mark of 4-1-2, good for second; advanced to the NCAA Sweet Sixteen; and finished 12th in the D3soccer.com Top 25, each all-time program bests. Coach Simonetti has led a remarkable turnaround for CWRU in the most difficult conference in women’s soccer. She became CWRU head coach in July 2019. In the ten years before her arrival, the Spartans averaged 1-5-1 in the UAA and 8-8-2 overall. In her first year, 2019, the Spartans set a program record for wins and made the NCAA field for only the second time in program history. This season, they blew past those marks with three added wins for another program best and advanced to the Sweet Sixteen. In her first two seasons the Spartans have cumulative win percent of .500 / .782 (UAA / overall), dramatic improvements over the .236 / .519 marks of the previous ten years. [https://d3soccer.com/awards/all-america/2021/2021-Womens-AA]

[PaulNewman]

Having followed Williams closely this year, I just want to say how much some of these posts are appreciated here at the end of their journey.  From a distance, their number of regular season wins and ties might raise questions about making the field of 64.  Those questions were answered for most with a 2-1 OT win against a strong NYU side (who provided UChicago the lone tie in an otherwise perfect season).  Things began to get interesting the next day after taking out Messiah on PK's.  The team knew they could play with anyone and anyone paying attention knew they would be a tough out- no matter what you think of their style of play.  A hard earned 1-0 win against Ohio Northern meant another Sunday match-up against a host team used to piling up goals and wins.  Kenyon got neither on that day as Williams made a late goal stand up for another 1-0 win.  One of the problems with denigrating a team's style of play is that it deflects credit from the players who earned every result they got.  Ben Diffley is one of the best, if not the best, GK's in DIII.  Nick Boardman demonstrated that he's among the best field players in DIII.  They and their teammates didn't surrender a goal in the run of play from October 15-December 3- a span of 11 games and 1,075 minutes.  That's your story.  The final game in that streak was another hard fought 1-0 win against UMW in the semi's.  The UChicago game was similar to the other five games played to that point in the tournament- this time a world class strike was the difference.  All you can do is tip your cap, hold your head high and say congratulations.

I've been thinking about if and how I wanted to respond to this and honestly was hoping more would chime in.

Multiple things can be true at the same time.  I think I was consistent all year (probably to a fault) in saying do NOT underestimate the NESCAC teams.  Some asked why we were talking about them so much and some were not that impressed, while some others questioned why we weren't focusing on them even more.  Some have shared that they really don't think about the D3 soccer world much outside of the NESCAC, almost to the point that it might feel insulting to not just let the NESCAC tournament serve as the national tournament.  Btw, I think we're up to about seven NESCAC GKs who are the best GK in the country.

Anyway, Williams basically did what I thought Middlebury (or Bowdoin) was gonna do. I can't tell if the poster agrees that Williams was the least likely of the five NESCACs in the tournament to make such a deep run, or if the message is that all the NESCAC quarterfinalists are equal in quality and difficulty.  At any rate, absolutely an incredible run and an incredible achievement.  I've praised Boardman like crazy.  Several of us have detailed the very difficult and impressive road the Ephs traveled to get to the final.  But just as Williams could have prevailed yet again (and we'll never know what would have happened if Pino hadn't scored a wonder goal), they also could have bowed out against any of the prior five opponents.  All were close, all could have gone the other way with a bounce here or there or a call or non-call here or there.  So, long story short, what ultimately gets my blood pressure and defenses up is the apparent insatiability of some NESCAC fans coupled with a stunning lack of humility....can never be talked about or praised enough, and there's no time to acknowledge some good breaks along the way or that some of the opponents were outstanding. I had some lovely exchanges with a couple of W&L folks both before and after the W&L-Kenyon game.  We complimented each other's teams, noted how things could have gone differently, and showed some fundamental respect.  To be fair, I also did the same with a Bowdoin supporter, mostly initiated by him, and he was incredibly gracious (to me, to Oneonta, to Mary Wash, to Kenyon, etc).  Yes, NESCAC is the best conference.  Yes, you have a war every week against every team in the conference.  But there's no guarantee that the eight NESCAC quarterfinalists would go play Gustavus or St Olaf or Pac Lutheran and blitz them 4-0 (or I guess blitz them 1-0).

[blue_jays]

   Now a few days after the NCAA championship game, the UChicago title and its significance has now sunken in for me. The Maroons capped an incredible season where it was a top-2 team in the nation wire-to-wire. Teams always have let down games at some points where their execution lags and they can’t deliver a win. That only bit the Maroons once all season – winning 22 times in 23 games during this particular “Season of the Draw” is extraordinary.
   Excising the ghosts of past years was particularly satisfying. The heyday teams of Lopez, Koh, and Capotosto were the most talented the Maroons had ever put on the field. But the NCAA semis proved to be an agonizing stumbling block. This 2022 group had the supreme confidence that they would make history for the program, and they did just that by delivering in the clutch moments.
  The prominent aspects that made this team special were the immense technical skill across the whole lineup, paired with the ability to adapt to the various strategies that opponents threw at them. UChicago was the definition of a second-half team: 36 of their 51 goals came after halftime (71 percent). Part of this attributable to adjustments made by the coaching staff, part of it was just the Maroons wearing their opponents down with superior talent that would keep chipping away until they got a breakthrough. The team possessed and passed the ball with precision in unhurried fashion. UChicago was a superb front-runner team all season and once they got the initial lead, a win felt inevitable.
  The Maroons played incredibly consistent soccer all year. Even their rare mistakes were frequently erased thanks to a shutdown defense that just didn’t give up shots on goal this year (2.6 per game). Last year saw late game collapses that cost them on 4 occasions. No such mistakes this year. The defense just didn’t give up good looks. As a result, UChicago only trailed for 64 minutes all season. They also notched more shutouts (13) than goals allowed (11).
Leading the way was the best center back duo D3 has seen in years with Richard Gillespie and Griffin Wada. Both 1st Team All-Americans who were brick walls their entire careers, and will go down as the best defenders in school history. Ask any coach who has played UChicago the past two years, and those will be the first two names that come up. True game changers for the program. 
   UChicago was immune to set pieces all season thanks to Wada (6-foot-5) and Gillespie (6-foot-3) winning every aerial ball in their zip code. 4 of their 11 goals allowed were on penalty kicks. 7 of the goals occurred when the Maroons already held a multi-goal lead. Only Wheaton was able to score more than 1 goal against UChicago all season. 
   Finally, the growth of the offense this season was hugely important. In 2021, the attack felt like it was stuck in neutral for games at a time. But the 2022 squad was much more dynamic thanks to the addition of precocious youngsters and the likes of Yetishefsky and Hu making big leaps in production.
All in all, it was an immensely rewarding season to watch, and these Maroons will always hold a special place in UChicago history.

[Shamrock]

When the Maroons came down to Wabash last season Wada's skills - especially his leadership of that backline - were crystal clear. 

That young man has a bright future ahead of him.

[PaulNewman]

I've been trying to understand my reaction to the narrative of "Chicago is a 2nd half team."

First, just so there is no misunderstanding, Chicago was my 2nd favorite team all season.  I ranked them ahead of Messiah all season until the NYU draw basically forced a drop to #2.  I've listened to several of the Chicago press conferences and could not be more impressed.  First class all the way, including the heartfelt nods to the alums who built the foundation upon which this season was laid.  Absolutely love Wada and Gillespie, although the attention they get to some degree masks the greatness of multiple other players.  I thought Moonesinge and Kabbani had fantastic tournaments, and Hu, Pino, Baldwin, and Leuker were all outstanding.  Yeti is Yeti, and the two frosh Kai Walsh and Alex Lee are going to cause havoc in the UAA and nationally for three more years (although I did think the latter two were quieter and a little less impactful in the last few games than I expected).  There have been some very talented Final 4 and championship teams over the past six to eight years, but I don't think any were more talented than this 2022 Chicago squad.  Bottom line...it was a joy watching a team that believed a title was their destiny actually go out and climb to the top of the mountain.

So, the 2nd half thing.  The way this idea has been expressed imo gives an impression that this was intentional and a standard part of game plans rather than a secondary effect of other factors.  I assume folks don't think Chicago didn't want to score in 1st halves or didn't try very hard to score in 1st halves.  There's also the other part of keeping the other team off the scoreboard (in both halves).  To the extent that it's true (and I get the point about 71% of goals, wearing teams out even though Chicago usually used less subs than opponents) I see the 2nd half phenomenon as a function of patience and poise.  I remember exactly when my impression of Chicago in this regard was solidified. It was the Calvin game in the 1st half shortly before Calvin's outside back picked up two yellows within just a couple of minutes.  Calvin had been dominating with a spell of possession and was camped out in the Chicago half for a long stretch but Chicago looked unphased and comfortable defending in their half and even deep in their half.  I remember posting about it....that the Maroons were under some pressure but did not look pressured or appear to be scrambling.  In some ways I think they were patient to a fault.  In other words, they had the talent to score more in 1st halves, and I'm sure they would have preferred to score in at least one of the two halves versus Stevens when they were pushed to within 3-4 minutes of PKs.  I'm sure they would have preferred to score in the first half against Williams.  I doubt they were happier about 0-0 at the half than they would have been up 1-0 or 2-0.  And it's not like Chicago came out in the 2nd half and blitzed Williams.  Pino's goal was far from the best chance teams had against Williams in the Williams run except for the fact that it went in.  I don't recall many more or better chances in that 2nd half.  In short, I think Chicago could have been even better.  Imo with their talent they should have been able to produce more offense against Calvin and NYU who played with 10 men for a full half and half or more of the 1st half.  And the lack of more offensive punch in those games wasn't because Calvin and NYU took on a more defensive posture a la Stevens and Williams.

I do think it would have been interesting to see Chicago play Messiah, Kenyon, W&L, and/or Calvin....teams set up more to attack than to rely on the counter.  in some ways I think the Maroons might have preferred playing those teams because it's very hard to counter against teams like Stevens and Williams so determined to wait for their own counters. But then I think about Chicago struggling with 10 men attacking teams for 65-70 minutes and wonder what games against very talented, attacking teams might have looked like.

[Kuiper]

I've been trying to understand my reaction to the narrative of "Chicago is a 2nd half team."

First, just so there is no misunderstanding, Chicago was my 2nd favorite team all season.  I ranked them ahead of Messiah all season until the NYU draw basically forced a drop to #2.  I've listened to several of the Chicago press conferences and could not be more impressed.  First class all the way, including the heartfelt nods to the alums who built the foundation upon which this season was laid.  Absolutely love Wada and Gillespie, although the attention they get to some degree masks the greatness of multiple other players.  I thought Moonesinge and Kabbani had fantastic tournaments, and Hu, Pino, Baldwin, and Leuker were all outstanding.  Yeti is Yeti, and the two frosh Kai Walsh and Alex Lee are going to cause havoc in the UAA and nationally for three more years (although I did think the latter two were quieter and a little less impactful in the last few games than I expected).  There have been some very talented Final 4 and championship teams over the past six to eight years, but I don't think any were more talented than this 2022 Chicago squad.  Bottom line...it was a joy watching a team that believed a title was their destiny actually go out and climb to the top of the mountain.

So, the 2nd half thing.  The way this idea has been expressed imo gives an impression that this was intentional and a standard part of game plans rather than a secondary effect of other factors.  I assume folks don't think Chicago didn't want to score in 1st halves or didn't try very hard to score in 1st halves.  There's also the other part of keeping the other team off the scoreboard (in both halves).  To the extent that it's true (and I get the point about 71% of goals, wearing teams out even though Chicago usually used less subs than opponents) I see the 2nd half phenomenon as a function of patience and poise.  I remember exactly when my impression of Chicago in this regard was solidified. It was the Calvin game in the 1st half shortly before Calvin's outside back picked up two yellows within just a couple of minutes.  Calvin had been dominating with a spell of possession and was camped out in the Chicago half for a long stretch but Chicago looked unphased and comfortable defending in their half and even deep in their half.  I remember posting about it....that the Maroons were under some pressure but did not look pressured or appear to be scrambling.  In some ways I think they were patient to a fault.  In other words, they had the talent to score more in 1st halves, and I'm sure they would have preferred to score in at least one of the two halves versus Stevens when they were pushed to within 3-4 minutes of PKs.  I'm sure they would have preferred to score in the first half against Williams.  I doubt they were happier about 0-0 at the half than they would have been up 1-0 or 2-0.  And it's not like Chicago came out in the 2nd half and blitzed Williams.  Pino's goal was far from the best chance teams had against Williams in the Williams run except for the fact that it went in.  I don't recall many more or better chances in that 2nd half.  In short, I think Chicago could have been even better.  Imo with their talent they should have been able to produce more offense against Calvin and NYU who played with 10 men for a full half and half or more of the 1st half.  And the lack of more offensive punch in those games wasn't because Calvin and NYU took on a more defensive posture a la Stevens and Williams.

I do think it would have been interesting to see Chicago play Messiah, Kenyon, W&L, and/or Calvin....teams set up more to attack than to rely on the counter.  in some ways I think the Maroons might have preferred playing those teams because it's very hard to counter against teams like Stevens and Williams so determined to wait for their own counters. But then I think about Chicago struggling with 10 men attacking teams for 65-70 minutes and wonder what games against very talented, attacking teams might have looked like.

Chicago is a typical possession-based team.  They value it very highly, they are very good at it, and they are conservative about taking risks that would cause them not to be in possession.  Possession-based teams often have trouble in the final third because there isn't as much space to do what they like to do and there are more bodies from the opposing teams to clog the passing lanes.  So, after probing for awhile, they either pass back and reset or they pass across field to try to unbalance the defense.  Some possession-based teams are simply better than their opponents and do manage to break-through with nifty through balls in the ground to runners across the box.  Chicago had some of those, but the better defenses shut that down.  Others do well with long shots.  That was Pino's goal in the championship game.  I don't think long shots were a staple of their offense, but they were an underrated contributor because Chicago's long shots were often the play before the goal rather than the goal itself.  Pino had several long shots this year that resulted in goals on the rebounds, which is the sign of an active and intelligent attacking group and defenders who are caught ball-watching while they expect their GK to save them. 

From the games I watched and looking at box scores generally, though, Chicago generated most of their offense (either the goal or the play before the goal) in two ways:  (1) set pieces, using their size as a target to either score from or to redistribute with a header from the back post, and (2) long balls carefully placed to a forward on the move.  The fouls leading to the former often occurred because one of their attackers got behind a defender and was fouled or because Chicago managed to use its superior ball skill and quick passing to cause defenders to be late in their challenges or to block balls out for corners.  The latter often came from balls sent down the sides and crossed in or over the top to onrushing players (primarily Lee or Yetishefsky)  Both of those options, while effective, can be shut down by a disciplined team, but defenders tend to wear down and that can make them more successful in the second half (especially since Chicago often used Lee off the bench, which made him fresher).

The bottom line is that Chicago's approach, except in the case of long shots, requires patience to break through and it can be shut down.  Where Chicago really did well wasn't so much against attacking teams as against possession teams who simply weren't as good at it as Chicago.  So, for example, Carnegie Mellon was sliced apart by Chicago because Chicago broke up their possession game and CMU was often caught out of position and in bad shape.  Arguably, the same thing ultimately happened with St. Thomas after the cold and the fatigue from multiple tough games wore them down.  I think Chicago would have done well against Mary Washington for this reason, but would have struggled against Messiah to generate scoring.  The reality, though, is that Messiah would have had some of the same difficulties and the game could have come down to set pieces

EDIT:  I should add that one thing that Chicago and other possession-based teams don't do a ton is long goal kicks and punts.  Statistically, those are so likely to result in giving the ball back to the other teams that they should be considered "designed turnovers."  What's the point of punts and long goal kicks then?  To push the turnover to the opponent's half of the field where it will be less dangerous than if it happened on a pass near your own goal, while hoping that the kicking team can generate enough chaos on the play that you end up with the ball.  Teams used to boot the ball to the corner flag from the opening kickoff for the same reason - it pushed the defense back to a corner of their side of the field near their goal where the strikers could try to pressure them into a mistake.  Possession teams, by contrast, do short passes and GK throws out of the back to the sides or to a CM checking back, all with the hope to draw the other teams out of its shell and open up space behind them.  Problem for Chicago was that teams didn't really try to press those passes in the defensive end too aggressively because they knew Chicago could get around the pressure and unlock them that way.  So, ironically, Chicago's superior skill at possession actually hurt their ability to execute one of the tactics that possession teams use to generate offense.

[PaulNewman]

@Kuiper....totally agree about Mary Wash and Chicago.  I am curious, though, why you think Chicago's superior possession style was in some ways limiting on the offensive side of the ball compared to a Messiah that is very similar in terms of valuing and maintaining the majority of possession.  I mean, there's no arguing with a national title which was well-earned and well-deserved, but could the Maroons have trusted their first-in-class defense just a little more to create a little more offense?  Not sure about the CMU example since Calvin eviscerated the Tartans just as much as Chicago did.  Also curious why you think Chicago struggled (comparatively speaking) against two teams that played with 10 men for at least 2/3 of the games.  What would the narrative be if Stevens (or Williams) had gotten to PKs and prevailed?  I personally think Chicago was good enough to win both Final 4 games by at least 2-0 (and not the distorted 2-0 they got with Williams) especially given the many months they had waited to get back the Final 4 and prove that they were the best team in the country (or at least best still standing).  Put another way, I think they were better than the other teams by more than a razor thin margin

[PaulNewman]

I was curious if there was a similarity between the Pino goal vs Williams and the Cubeddu Amherst goal in the 108th minute last year.  Not really that similar.  But what I did notice is that Chicago in the few minutes before the Amherst GW had a couple of prolonged possessions in the Amherst final 3rd, and literally about 45-60 secs before the GW Yeti had a clean look from 10 yards out which he must have replayed in his head hundreds of times.  The right side of the net was wide open but Yeti went to left, struck it well, but didn't rip it, and Hope-Gund made the save.  Amherst comes down to other end, we get a flip throw by Johnson from the deep corner, ball gets played out back to Johnson still out wide, he puts in another cross, probably Wada or Gillespie head the ball out, but ball falls right at the feet of Cubeddu at the top of the 18, and he blasts the ball into the lower left corner at 107:47.  In this year's semi Yeti gets the GW via a header at 106:44...which is almost exactly the time left on the scoreboard the prior year when Yeti had the great chance on Hope-Gund.  Heartbreak versus the greatest feeling you've ever had in your life...and which way that lands can be determined in one or two seconds.

[blue_jays]

I've been trying to understand my reaction to the narrative of "Chicago is a 2nd half team."

First, just so there is no misunderstanding, Chicago was my 2nd favorite team all season.  I ranked them ahead of Messiah all season until the NYU draw basically forced a drop to #2.  I've listened to several of the Chicago press conferences and could not be more impressed.  First class all the way, including the heartfelt nods to the alums who built the foundation upon which this season was laid.  Absolutely love Wada and Gillespie, although the attention they get to some degree masks the greatness of multiple other players.  I thought Moonesinge and Kabbani had fantastic tournaments, and Hu, Pino, Baldwin, and Leuker were all outstanding.  Yeti is Yeti, and the two frosh Kai Walsh and Alex Lee are going to cause havoc in the UAA and nationally for three more years (although I did think the latter two were quieter and a little less impactful in the last few games than I expected).  There have been some very talented Final 4 and championship teams over the past six to eight years, but I don't think any were more talented than this 2022 Chicago squad.  Bottom line...it was a joy watching a team that believed a title was their destiny actually go out and climb to the top of the mountain.

So, the 2nd half thing.  The way this idea has been expressed imo gives an impression that this was intentional and a standard part of game plans rather than a secondary effect of other factors.  I assume folks don't think Chicago didn't want to score in 1st halves or didn't try very hard to score in 1st halves.  There's also the other part of keeping the other team off the scoreboard (in both halves).  To the extent that it's true (and I get the point about 71% of goals, wearing teams out even though Chicago usually used less subs than opponents) I see the 2nd half phenomenon as a function of patience and poise.  I remember exactly when my impression of Chicago in this regard was solidified. It was the Calvin game in the 1st half shortly before Calvin's outside back picked up two yellows within just a couple of minutes.  Calvin had been dominating with a spell of possession and was camped out in the Chicago half for a long stretch but Chicago looked unphased and comfortable defending in their half and even deep in their half.  I remember posting about it....that the Maroons were under some pressure but did not look pressured or appear to be scrambling.  In some ways I think they were patient to a fault.  In other words, they had the talent to score more in 1st halves, and I'm sure they would have preferred to score in at least one of the two halves versus Stevens when they were pushed to within 3-4 minutes of PKs.  I'm sure they would have preferred to score in the first half against Williams.  I doubt they were happier about 0-0 at the half than they would have been up 1-0 or 2-0.  And it's not like Chicago came out in the 2nd half and blitzed Williams.  Pino's goal was far from the best chance teams had against Williams in the Williams run except for the fact that it went in.  I don't recall many more or better chances in that 2nd half.  In short, I think Chicago could have been even better.  Imo with their talent they should have been able to produce more offense against Calvin and NYU who played with 10 men for a full half and half or more of the 1st half.  And the lack of more offensive punch in those games wasn't because Calvin and NYU took on a more defensive posture a la Stevens and Williams.

I do think it would have been interesting to see Chicago play Messiah, Kenyon, W&L, and/or Calvin....teams set up more to attack than to rely on the counter.  in some ways I think the Maroons might have preferred playing those teams because it's very hard to counter against teams like Stevens and Williams so determined to wait for their own counters. But then I think about Chicago struggling with 10 men attacking teams for 65-70 minutes and wonder what games against very talented, attacking teams might have looked like.

Chicago is a typical possession-based team.  They value it very highly, they are very good at it, and they are conservative about taking risks that would cause them not to be in possession.  Possession-based teams often have trouble in the final third because there isn't as much space to do what they like to do and there are more bodies from the opposing teams to clog the passing lanes.  So, after probing for awhile, they either pass back and reset or they pass across field to try to unbalance the defense.  Some possession-based teams are simply better than their opponents and do manage to break-through with nifty through balls in the ground to runners across the box.  Chicago had some of those, but the better defenses shut that down.  Others do well with long shots.  That was Pino's goal in the championship game.  I don't think long shots were a staple of their offense, but they were an underrated contributor because Chicago's long shots were often the play before the goal rather than the goal itself.  Pino had several long shots this year that resulted in goals on the rebounds, which is the sign of an active and intelligent attacking group and defenders who are caught ball-watching while they expect their GK to save them. 

From the games I watched and looking at box scores generally, though, Chicago generated most of their offense (either the goal or the play before the goal) in two ways:  (1) set pieces, using their size as a target to either score from or to redistribute with a header from the back post, and (2) long balls carefully placed to a forward on the move.  The fouls leading to the former often occurred because one of their attackers got behind a defender and was fouled or because Chicago managed to use its superior ball skill and quick passing to cause defenders to be late in their challenges or to block balls out for corners.  The latter often came from balls sent down the sides and crossed in or over the top to onrushing players (primarily Lee or Yetishefsky)  Both of those options, while effective, can be shut down by a disciplined team, but defenders tend to wear down and that can make them more successful in the second half (especially since Chicago often used Lee off the bench, which made him fresher).

The bottom line is that Chicago's approach, except in the case of long shots, requires patience to break through and it can be shut down.  Where Chicago really did well wasn't so much against attacking teams as against possession teams who simply weren't as good at it as Chicago.  So, for example, Carnegie Mellon was sliced apart by Chicago because Chicago broke up their possession game and CMU was often caught out of position and in bad shape.  Arguably, the same thing ultimately happened with St. Thomas after the cold and the fatigue from multiple tough games wore them down.  I think Chicago would have done well against Mary Washington for this reason, but would have struggled against Messiah to generate scoring.  The reality, though, is that Messiah would have had some of the same difficulties and the game could have come down to set pieces

EDIT:  I should add that one thing that Chicago and other possession-based teams don't do a ton is long goal kicks and punts.  Statistically, those are so likely to result in giving the ball back to the other teams that they should be considered "designed turnovers."  What's the point of punts and long goal kicks then?  To push the turnover to the opponent's half of the field where it will be less dangerous than if it happened on a pass near your own goal, while hoping that the kicking team can generate enough chaos on the play that you end up with the ball.  Teams used to boot the ball to the corner flag from the opening kickoff for the same reason - it pushed the defense back to a corner of their side of the field near their goal where the strikers could try to pressure them into a mistake.  Possession teams, by contrast, do short passes and GK throws out of the back to the sides or to a CM checking back, all with the hope to draw the other teams out of its shell and open up space behind them.  Problem for Chicago was that teams didn't really try to press those passes in the defensive end too aggressively because they knew Chicago could get around the pressure and unlock them that way.  So, ironically, Chicago's superior skill at possession actually hurt their ability to execute one of the tactics that possession teams use to generate offense.

   Kuiper nailed it in terms of the overall analysis.
   GK Boyes rarely ever gave it a big boot unless he had to. Mostly he just did a short pass/throw to Wada to start distribution and build through the back. UChicago has been building through the back this way since the days of Mike Babst, it's one of their calling cards that has carried over.
   In terms of why UChicago struggled in 11v10 scenarios, there is no answer for it, just a mystery. I think it changed the mindset too much in terms of the way they're used to playing and they would overanalyze too much.
   UChicago was at its best offensively when working with speed coming down the field, where their athleticism and great touch on the ball could carry the day against backpedaling defenders. The attack was definitely less effective once they were camped out in the offensive half with the defense in good position and ready. Things would just slow down too much and too many bodies in front to get great looks. Let's not forget either: the Maroons were a below-average offense in 2021, they struggled to score and put teams away that season. So the growth they've had to this season has been notable.
   I think it just comes down to what this particular group is best at doing, which is lightning-fast counters and speedy buildups. They love a fast turf and to create on the fly.

[Hopkins92]

Yeah, great job by kuiper breaking down the possession style pros and cons.

As someone that's watched a LOT of that style from "my" team, the issue of finishing is key. Now, I'd rather the team I played on/coached/cheer for to play possession if they have the skill and depth to do it.

But, play around in the back and you get burned. On the other end of the field, you need to be decisive and clinical. In my experience, you see these types of teams get too caught up in possession and they can lose the plot in the final third.

[Kuiper]

@Kuiper....totally agree about Mary Wash and Chicago.  I am curious, though, why you think Chicago's superior possession style was in some ways limiting on the offensive side of the ball compared to a Messiah that is very similar in terms of valuing and maintaining the majority of possession.  I mean, there's no arguing with a national title which was well-earned and well-deserved, but could the Maroons have trusted their first-in-class defense just a little more to create a little more offense?  Not sure about the CMU example since Calvin eviscerated the Tartans just as much as Chicago did.  Also curious why you think Chicago struggled (comparatively speaking) against two teams that played with 10 men for at least 2/3 of the games.  What would the narrative be if Stevens (or Williams) had gotten to PKs and prevailed?  I personally think Chicago was good enough to win both Final 4 games by at least 2-0 (and not the distorted 2-0 they got with Williams) especially given the many months they had waited to get back the Final 4 and prove that they were the best team in the country (or at least best still standing).  Put another way, I think they were better than the other teams by more than a razor thin margin

On the Chicago v. Messiah comparison, I think some of that has to do with Messiah having superior offensive stars/playmakers than Chicago has, some of that has to do with Messiah playing more high pressure to go along with its possession game, and some of it has to do with Messiah playing some opponents who were either tactically naive and non-pragmatic (i.e., playing Messiah straight up) or were simply not quality enough sides to execute any tactical response to Messiah (the bottom of the Commonwealth seems pretty far down).  The strongest challenge Messiah faced before the tournament might have come from a Lebanon Valley College team that didn't just park the bus, but they put it on cement blocks and placed a few of those big concrete planters out front.  Messiah resorted to scoring on a corner kick with a lobbed ball into the box for the first goal and then, after LVC scored on a counter, Messiah got the game winner on another corner kick floated in the box.  Their possession game wasn't any better than Chicago's in that situation.

One thing that really helped Messiah was coming out of the blocks very fast and scoring quickly, which pulled their opponents out of their shells (if they started in one) and paved the way to onslaughts.  Against NYU, Messiah's McDonald scored 21 seconds into the game.  Against Washington & Lee, they scored in the 12th minute.  Against Salisbury they scored in the 11th minute.  Against York in the conference semifinals, they scored in the 2nd minute.  Against Widener in the conference finals, they scored in the 2nd minute.  Against Carthage, which did sit back against them, they had a barrage in the opening few minutes and then scored in the 19th minute.  If Chicago had scored against NYU 21 seconds into the game, that likely would have changed the game more than the second yellow did.

Could Chicago have played like Messiah?  Probably, but I don't know that they have players who were as clinical and ruthless in front of the goal as Messiah.  Plus, Chicago's whole mindset is to be very patient and methodical at the beginning.  They are the type of possession team that passes the ball around the back line a few times before even thinking of passing forward and then retreats again if it doesn't pay dividends.  If a team overcommitted, then they would pounce, but a lot of teams respected them too much to make it easy for Chicago to get forward.  If you're asking why that is their mindset, the answer could come from the coach's decisions, but it often comes from the players.  Some guys just like to grow into the game or are too conservative to launch forward like that. I do think that Chicago could have survived Messiah's initial assault and I think that Messiah's passing game is too strong for Chicago to have capitalized by cutting off passes and starting counter attacks, which is why I said it would likely come down to set pieces notwithstanding Messiah having more firepower. 

As for the struggles against teams down a man, I think a little of that may be coaching or, as blue_jays said, to players overthinking it.  Not sure they adapted well to the changed circumstances.  My own experience from coaching is that certain players, from a very young age, are just risk-averse.  I could put a six year-old at forward in 5 v. 5 and he inevitably drifted back to defense.  I've followed some of those young players and they remain risk-averse as young men when they choose careers and everything.  It may be that they Chicago just had trouble deviating from their normal plan. Against NYU, for instance, Chicago still was attacking with the same number of players after the second yellow, rather than throwing more bodies forward.  They were worried about giving up the goal more than getting one of their own. 

[4samuy]

Imho, it comes down to Chicago managing games. They did play one of the toughest schedules in all of division 3. I mentioned back on the last day of conference championships that Chicago won the day due to three of their regular season wins,  Calvin, St Olaf and Luther all won their conference tournaments and that would be an advantage for the bracketologists.  IMO, that is what happened.  If you look at their bracket, there were some really good teams, but no teams had the so called elite eight or final four pedigree, which in my opinion was the key advantage to getting to the final four, other than the hosting advantage.

That being said, they bring a ton back.  You could say that losing Gillespie and Wada will cause disarray on the back line, but Imho they may have found the next great center back in freshman Alex Gomas. Due to the unbelievable duo of Gillespie and Wada he didn’t get much time in the run of play, but when moonsinghe went down with an injury, he brought his 6’2 190 lb frame in and was very composed. In fact, he created the pk that Lyndon hu put home in the game vs guc.  Unfortunately, that was the penalty that ended his season.

Imho this freshman class will be the catalysts for future success at Chicago.  Next year Lyndon hu, robbie pino and tanner baldwin will boss the midfield, with youngsters up front and continued solid back line, with gomas in the lineup will continue to play, against most likely a top schedule, and continue to manage games as they did this year.

[PaulNewman]

Kuiper, wow, you really know how to shut a guy down.  Excellent stuff.  I want to congratulate you on being named the PaulNewman D3soccer.com/D3 boards Newcomer of the Year.  In all seriousness, I can ramp down and out knowing that you will be here to hold down the fort.

I probably agree that Messiah has more offensive prowess although I'm not sure the gap is very wide.  If you watched Yeti against North Park he did a pretty decent Matt McDonald imitation.  The two Chicago frosh along with Pino and Hu imo also compare favorably to Messiah's other front men, and Kabbani, who perhaps isn't Groothoff level, is still really, really good.  And of course we know about the set piece capabilities of the much ballyhooed CB duo.  I also agree that overall Messiah racked up numbers against a good schedule but not a schedule that matched what Chicago faced.  You did highlight one difference that is real and that I still don't get from the Chicago side.  Messiah values possession but still plays with urgency.  I've claimed that Chicago's patience and poise were their calling cards but some urgency mixed in there might have helped.  And that's the thing about the 2nd half deal.  If I was a Chicago player or coach, especially knowing that only one outcome would be acceptable (the title), I think I would have felt more urgency to score early against both Stevens and Williams.  We're talking national semi and national final.  While I wouldn't expect them to change things up dramatically which no doubt would be ill-advised, I would be focused on how a 0-0 game into the second half or even just a 1-0 lead late could put the dream at risk.  We're talking about a Chicago rteam desperate to not leave anything to chance.  Stevens and Williams certainly were due to not prevail in a game like that after getting through several games in a row just like that, but to me a game playing out to 0-0 into the 107th minute or going deep into a second half 0-0 was playing with fire.  Obviously give credit to Stevens and Williams for being worthy foes who could have pulled the upset, and maybe Chicago did feel that urgency and just couldn't break through. 

Williams is a relevant variable here as the Ephs played both.  I credit Messiah a little more because they were first (well I guess second) in line for the Williams train, but while apparently some thought Williams could pull the upset that didn't seem likely at all until it actually happened.  Kenyon and Chicago should have benefited from seeing Messiah's fate, and maybe they did and Williams was still good enough for that not to matter.  But my point is that there was absolutely no reason for Chicago to be biding their time in a national final against a team that they knew could beat them 1-0 or prevail in PKs.  And maybe I was the only one who thought this, but the camera shots of Sitch towards the latter part of the 1st half I thought showed she was pretty concerned.

And yes @4samuy, I am sure Chicago will remain a top program for the foreseeable future.  One interesting thing on that, and maybe why I'm a little more reserved on the celebration of Sitch, is that I can't think of another top program that has had so many coaching changes in a relatively short span of time.  I do credit Sitch for masterful navigation while also believing that Wada, Gillespie, Boyes, didn't need a lot given their levels of talent, motivation, and knowledge.  But they did need someone who wouldn't come in and screw it all up.

[EnmoreCat]

You mean there's a "Newcomer Of The Year" award?  My posts would have been completely different had I known that...

I am gonna focus on Sophomore Of The Year for 2023.

[PaulNewman]

You mean there's a "Newcomer Of The Year" award?  My posts would have been completely different had I known that...

I am gonna focus on Sophomore Of The Year for 2023.

Welp, you made the All-Freshmen team.  There can only be one NOY.